Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he displayed what appeared to be a gun during the robbery. The element of display is satisfied when the evidence establishes that the defendant consciously displayed something that could reasonably be perceived as a firearm, with the intent of taking property, and the victim actually perceived the display (People v. Lopez, 73 N.Y.2d 214, 220; People v. Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374, 381). Thus, even a hand consciously concealed in clothing may suffice, if under all the circumstances the defendant's conduct could reasonably lead the victim to believe that a gun is being used during the robbery (see, People v Lopez, supra; People v. Knowles, 79 A.D.2d 116).
At bar, the complainant testified that during the robbery the defendant put his hand in the pocket of his jacket and pressed a hard object to her side, and that she thought the object was "probably a gun or a knife, I'm not really sure". Clearly, part of the complainant's perception of the object was that it was a gun, and that portion of her perception is legally sufficient to support a finding that the defendant displayed what appeared to be a firearm (see, People v. Pierre, 220 A.D.2d 538).
The defendant's remaining contention does not require reversal. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.